When two parties want to communicate over great distances in real-time, the telephone has heretofore been the communication technology of choice. However, advancements in communication technologies over the past several years now allow both audio and video communication between parties over great distances, typically via the Internet. These forms of communication are commonly referred to as video conferencing. Modern video conferencing, depending on the complexity (and associated expense) of the equipment involved can provide virtually real-time communication among two or more parties.
Video conferencing typically requires local equipment associated with each person seeking to participate in the conference. When the conference is to be started, the equipment at each location is used to call in (e.g., “conference in”) to a call center or the like. As each of these endpoints establishes a connection with the central location, the video and audio signals may then be accessed by all of the participants so that a conversation with both audio and video can take place. One common type of video conferencing equipment uses especially dedicated equipment at each geographic location for the participants. Such equipment typically uses an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) or similar data connection to transmit and receive audio/video communication data during the video conference.
Unfortunately, conventionally available video conferencing equipment of the prior art has a common characteristic: each system requires endpoint initiation and/or termination (i.e., end point control) for each participant in the conference. Such end point control is particularly problematic when the video conferencing system is used as a remote visitation system where one participant is incarcerated (i.e., a prisoner in a jail, prison, penitentiary, etc.).
As used hereinafter, the term inmate will be applied to such incarcerated persons and the term prison will be used to refer to any and all facilities where an inmate may be incarcerated.
To allow an inmate to have end point control of a remote visitation system is universally disallowed. Prisons do not want inmates to have unrestricted access to the Internet. Consequently, in such systems of the prior art, prison personnel are required to handle video conference initiation and termination as well as to monitor most, if not all, non-privileged video conferences.
However, the advantages of a remote visitation video conferencing system in the prison environment are many. Often, an inmate is incarcerated in a location a great distance from his family or friends. Such distances often result in visitation of the inmate being inconvenient or even impossible due to travel time and expense for friends and family. Consequently, a video conference with the inmate would seem to provide an acceptable alternative to an in-person visit. However, the expense and complexity of traditional video visitation equipment, and associated personnel cost incurred by the prison to facilitate end point control may be prohibitive. Perhaps more important is the potential security risk if an inmate has endpoint control. In conventional face-to-face visits, conversations between inmates and their visitors are monitored to ensure that no greater security risk is created than already exists with an outsider's presence in the prison. However, if endpoint control, in Internet based video visitation, were given to an inmate, it would be difficult to effectively monitor the visit to ensure security. Potential security breaches include, but are not limited to, coded dialog between the inmate and a visitor, as well as hand and facial gestures used to communicate prohibited information.
While traditional video conferencing equipment could potentially be used in the prison environment, the above-mentioned problems would still be present. To illustrate the point; a video communication initiated outside of the prison, over the Internet, directed to an inmate, using a traditional video visitation system, must be received by one or more designated prison employees. The prison employee then has to contact prison employees working in the inmate's cell block, and determine whether the inmate is available to receive the visit. If the inmate is available to receive a visit then the prison employees, working in the inmate's cell block, are then required to coordinate ushering the inmate to the designated video visitation station to receive the visit, and the visit is connected. Outgoing Internet based video visitation using traditional systems also puts demands on prison personnel in that the system requires prison personnel to initiate the communication and coordinate placement of the inmate at a station within his cell block to receive the communication. Thus, a traditional video visitation system, using the Internet to facilitate the communication, whether the communication is incoming or outgoing, places a heavy labor burden on the prison. An Internet based traditional video visitation cannot be initiated directly by an inmate, without prison personnel intervention, because prisons will not allow unrestricted inmate access to the Internet.
One further reason traditional video conferencing would not be workable for prison visitation and other similar situations is the lack of synchronicity between data connections during the conference. More specifically, as each participant in the video conference connects to the conversation, a new data connection, or path, is created. In a prison situation, at least three data paths would be present: one for the inmate, one for the visitor, and one for the overseer monitoring the conversation. Unfortunately, an inherent latency exists between these multiple connections that pose a significant security risk for the prison. Because of latency in the data path during data transmission, communication is not instantaneous; the delay is a function of all intermediate equipment and media along the data path. Because different routes may be taken along each data path, there may exist a difference in latency and the delay experienced by each when each party is connected with a separate data path. Unfortunately, this difference in latency among multiple simultaneous data paths poses a significant security risk for a prison. As a result, the visitor or inmate may engage in an improper communication during the visit, but the difference in latency between connections prevents the overseer from learning of the improper conduct in time to prevent it or further improper conduct from occurring.
Accordingly, what is needed is an Internet based video visitation system that; (i) permits video visits between participants that are initiated by inmates, under strictly controlled parameters, and (ii) does not require the assistance of prison personnel to effectuate the communication.